On Sunday 28 November 2004 07:00 pm, tim hall wrote: > Last Sunday 28 November 2004 15:47, John Check was like: > > > ? Vocals are often a problem for people who don't particularly think of > > > themselves as "good" singers (whatever that means: is Bob Dylan a > > > "good" singer ?), and there's a resulting tendency to put the vocals > > > too far > > No, from a technical POV, Bob Dylan is not a good singer. So what? plenty > of people love his voice and buy his records. Never really understood it > myself. My favourite singer, Robert Wyatt used to suffer from his fellow > Soft Machine members deliberately rearranging songs so he couldn't fit any > vocals in. Philistines. Beauty is in the ear of the beholder. > Yup > > I say two words to my comparatively green musician friends who say "ya > > gotta have good vox"; Tom Waites. AFAICT it's the same with every singer > > as far as insecurity goes and I've worked with lots. > > Well, you _do_ have to have good vox, but what that means varies according > to the needs of the piece and the listener. > Yup > There are certain things that will improve vocal performance - Confidence, > relaxation, good breathing. warm-ups and a good microphone & monitoring. > Technical limitations aren't a problem if you work with them. If you've > only got a vocal range of half an octave, don't try those Maria Carey > songs! Find out where your strong notes are and pitch accordingly. Most > people who tell me they can't sing are in fact trying to sing well out of > their range (Basses who try to follow female leads at pitch for example). > Absolutely. One has to find ones voice. > > > back in the mix. The thought is often to truly "mix" the vocals in with > > > the instruments, but I suggest taking it the other way on, i.e., mixing > > > the instruments against the voice. The song is the thing, its melody > > > and lyrics must be clearly heard (or at least clearly sensed: I can't > > > > Yup. I used to work a lot with doo woppers. 'Nuff said. > > Absolutely. One musician friend of mine has this dreadful tendency to > flange/chorus everything he does. He thinks this 'fattens up' the sound. I > keep trying to explain that it in fact does the opposite, it muddies it all > up into a chorusy wash. The best vocal sound is inevitably the least messed > about - maybe a little compression and a natural reverb, that's it. > Like I used to say "you can't shine shit". Slept on the couch a few times for that opinion. ;) > Best practice seems to be to set the balance of the drums and main vocal > first and then mix everything else slightly behind, bass first, rhythmic / > chordal instruments last and usually furthest back. Backing vocals can be > anything from dry to lost in the wash depending on how close you want the > harmonies and the mood of the music. > > > > usually understand the lyrics to Mudvayne but at least their man is out > > > front). One of my favorite local musicians made a wonderful album years > > > ago, but the one mistake he made on it was to mix his voice too deeply > > > into the instrumental sounds. He told me he wished he hadn't done so, > > > and that his decision was based on his poor opinion of his own singing. > > > Sometimes it's best to get another opinion, I guess that's part of the > > > function of a good producer. > > Definitely. The human voice is the closest instrument to our emotions and > we are all our own worst critics. It's important to get it right as the > vocals are also the main point of emotional contact in most songs. > Remember, some of the great stuff about Elvis is when his voice cracks with > emotion. The way you feel when you record the vocals is what gets > transferred to the listener - if you feel like you're doing a tightrope > walk and only just make it to the end or are on the edge of tears, that's > what the listener will perceive. These are often the 'magic' takes. > That's what I like to call "juice". Nothing like a few spirit beads to make it real. > cheers > > tim hall > http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
